Talk:Isabella Garcia-Shapiro
PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER TEMPLATE! IT IS FINE THE WAY IT IS!!!--SuperFlash101 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC) :Who is changing the character template? And why are you yelling in caps about it on Isabella's talk page? —Topher 04:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) :Template, is that the box that contains the characters info? -Audun 05:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Audun ::I believe that's what Flash is talking about, but I'm not sure and from what I can tell, it hasn't been changed. —Topher 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC) :::I just mean that every other page has been changed with the other template. I, myself, don't like it, so I just want this at least to be the one I like. -S. Flash (Talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC) ::::What don't you like about the other template? Other than being smaller to match the wiki-ad space at the top of the page, isn't it the same as this one? —Topher 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC) :::::Actually, there's more than that that's different. The font is smaller, and the image that goes in there always come out bad, where it's all pixily and wide. Also, on the "family" part of it, you can't include other things like their cousin or even, in Dr. Doofenshmirtz's case, clones. Those are the reasons I don't like it, because, honestly, it doesn't look that good and can't contain the information it needs. --Flash 101 (Talk) 15:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::If you don't like the infobox, then let's fix it. Let's find some sort of compromise solution for this; I'll take it point by point. I originally made the font smaller in order to fit a similar amount of information in the smaller space due to wanting to match it to the ad space at the top. We could make it bigger again, or somewhere in between. Next, the picture can be easily fixed. The problem now is that all images get automatically "upsized" to 293px wide, and proportionately long, essentially zooming in on a picture causing pixelation. I think if I take out the forced resize, smaller pics will stay original size and larger pics can be set to match the infobox width. As far as cousin is concerned, I suppose I could put them in there, but then I don't see a reason to have "other family" in there, too. How would you put Doofenshmirtz's clones in there? they have no names. It doesn't seem to me to be something that needs to be included in an infobox. I suppose technically they could be put in with the use of a variable for the row heading. Then you could put in whatever you wanted. I suppose we could also put hair color and eye color back in, but since we have a pic of the character when we use an infobox, this seems unnecessary. Also, we could put "Created by" back in, but since we don't know who really created each character, it usually ends up being a link to Dan Povenmire and Swampy Marsh. Remember, an infobox is not supposed to be a substitute for an article, just someplace to get a quick overview at a glance. —Topher 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC) :::::::That sounds great! Let's do that! And, P.S., what I was planning to do for Doofenshmirtz and his clones put, "Slovenly Clone (Deleted) Shriveled Clone (Deleted) Hundreds of others (Deleted)". Anyways, thanks, and I'll be looking for that! Thanks, Toph! --Super Flash (Talk) 04:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Images It seems popular to remove the background for our character pages' main picture, so if anyone doesn't mind I can easily do that for Isabella and others, I ask because it seems this page will be becoming next month's featured article of the month or something along those lines and it might be best to leep it concurrent especially with something that will be shown on the main page. felinoel ~ (Talk) 00:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC) :I actually like the pictures with the backgrounds in tact, but if everyone else likes them without backgrounds, I'm not going to stand in anyone's way. The one thing that needs to be done to this article before it gets posted to the main page is to include the Infobox character template. I hope Flash is okay with this now that I've addressed his concerns from the above talk page section. —Topher 04:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I also like it with the background but I noticed everyone seems to like it without? felinoel ~ (Talk) 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) ::I agree with Felinoel, the background looks good. I actually dislike the picture in Candaceses and Jennys article, they look a bit "blank"... -Audun 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) So what should we do? felinoel ~ (Talk) 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) :::I like the backgrounds myself. But, wait, who is "everyone"? Flash (Talk) 23:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Wait a minute, if no one likes the background-less pictures who keeps using them? felinoel ~ (Talk) 00:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) :::Drewdy9999, I believe. That's what the history on the pages say. --SuperFlash101 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) If he is the only one who seems to like it I think we should change it back then... felinoel ~ (Talk) 06:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) :I agree. Let's change them back. —Topher 07:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC) "Isabella in her natural state." What is with this caption? If that picture is of her in her natural state, I think a picture of her in her unnatural state is needed too? felinoel ~ (Talk) 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :The page is in need of major revival anyways. If you or anyone else would be up to it, that is something you can add. The Flash {talk} 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC) :Her unnatural state, eh? You mean like the picture on the right? To answer your question, I gave it that caption because it matched how the article described her personality.--JeremyCreek 07:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ::lol I was just kidding, but that is a humorous unnatural state picture felinoel ~ (Talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Age. Has Isabella's age been confirmed? Cuz someone went and changed it again. --Invisibool :Nope, it hasn't. --Zaggy (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::Btw, Dan Povenmire or Jeff "Swampy" Marsh said that the main characters (only the kids, I think) aren't ever going to have age defined. --Zaggy (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::Yes, but we aren't supposed to quote one of them... felinoel ~ (Talk) 06:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ::::They're the ones who'd know, if they say that they're not going to say their age in the show (especially since it's to keep entertainment value), then we should trust them on that. Just because they say not to quote them on anything, doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them on this. And anyway, I'm pretty sure it was Dan Povenmire that said, in an interview, or something, that they wouldn't define the age. It was Swampy that said that we shouldn't quote him, not Dan. --Zaggy (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, and he only said it once, every other time he's been cool with it. The Flash {talk} 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)